Pages

Wednesday, May 2, 2012

Analysis of Third Circuit Case Law on Recusal Standards (part 2)

As promised from
"Analysis of Third Circuit Case Law on Recusal Standards" I have
returned to share more case law that Judge Noel L. Hillman thumbs his nose to,
and or is willfully ignorant of.

In the above post we
looked at the 1989 case of U.S. v. Furst 886 F.2d 558. Here, lets take a look at the 1976 case that
was decided on September 1, 1976, Mims v. Sharp, 541 F. 2d 415, 416. Within that case at page 416 Judge Gibson
wrote:

"That fourth contention is that in ruling on
appellants' motion to disqualify himself the district judge applied the wrong
legal standard under 28 U.S.C. § 144. We agree, and conclude that all
proceedings from December 10, 1974, the date of the § 144 motion, must be
vacated and the case returned to the district court for reassignment to a
different judge."

I'll trust that if
there are any lawyer out there that disagree with my understanding of this
case, they will comment in correction below.I understand the above case to say that after properly applying the
standards under 28 U.S.C. § 144, the above court agreed with the petitioner and
held the all proceedings from 12/10/1974, the date that the § 144 motion was
filed, must be vacated.The above court
further said that because the judge misapplied § 144 the case would be returned
to the district court and reassigned to a different judge.

How many remember
that in the 12th paragraph of "Analysis of Third Circuit Case Law on Recusal Standards"
I referred to Judge Hillman's March 28, 2012, opinion as invalid? All those trained in the law, please correct
me if I'm wrong. If I filed my recusal
motion on January 18, 2012, seeking the recusal of Judges Noel L. Hillman and
Karen M. Williams from civil actions 08-cv-02407 and 11-cv-06304, Judge Noel L.
Hillman should not have proceeded and further in civil action 08-cv-02407,
correct?

Well lets see, the
cover letter that I shared with everyone substantiates that I was at the clerks
desk on 1/18/2012. I discussed this fact in detail within the post entitled
"Hickson vs. Hillman's & Williams' (JSHIT)."
That post also has a direct link to a copy of the cover letter also. But…

There will be some
nay-sayer's that will say that there is one key element that's missing, and that
would be the appearance that the motion for recusal was filed in regards to
civil action 11-cv-06304. Well lets take a closer look, because correct me if
I'm wrong again but Noel L. Hillman was put on notice that I was requesting his
recusal in both cases.

How about I save you
some time and tell you that averment #27 of the Motion for Recusal reads:

through #26 unless supported by substantial evidence
to the contrary, support and offer

valid grounds for their recusal from civil action’s
1:11-cv-06304 and 1:08-cv-02407.

If there are still
some that must see things for themselves because they only believe half of what
they hear, well they can click the following link and scroll down to page 9 to
see averment #27 at the top of the page.

I had a very long
day, just as many of you have either ahead of you or behind you as well, but
there is another case I'd like to share with you so please return and view this
show stopper.

I am new at this but thank you for opening my eyes that I need to start educating myself on the law in order to set myself free from the NYC Family Court Industrial Complex which has held me hostage for the pass 6 years without a trial while denying me normal visitation.